AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was charged with criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) in the second degree, among other charges. During the trial, the charge was amended to third degree CSCM, and a jury instruction for the lesser included offense of battery was included. The jury declared a mistrial due to disagreement on Count 1, acquitted the Defendant on Counts 2 and 3, and found the Defendant not guilty of Counts 4 and 5. The Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to bar retrial on the CSCM charge, arguing that double jeopardy principles prevent his retrial for CSCM (paras 1, 13).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to bar retrial on the charge of CSCM in the third degree.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court failed to properly determine whether the jury was hung on the charge of CSCM or the lesser included charge of battery, leading to an "implied acquittal" of CSCM. Asserted that retrial for CSCM violates the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to bar retrial on the CSCM charge based on double jeopardy principles.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to bar retrial on the CSCM charge (para 17).

Reasons

• Per SUTIN, J. (HANISEE, J., concurring; GARCIA, J., dissenting):
  The Court found that the record was not ambiguous regarding the district court’s inquiry into the jury deliberations and the charge upon which the jury was deadlocked. It was clear that the jury was hung on the CSCM charge, not the lesser included offense of battery. Therefore, double jeopardy principles do not prevent retrial for CSCM (paras 1, 8-14).
  The Court held that the communications between the jury and the district court, along with the verbal confirmation from the foreman, demonstrated that the jury was deadlocked on CSCM. This satisfied the intent of Rule 5-611(D), and to reverse the decision would be to prioritize form over substance (paras 15-16).
  GARCIA, J., dissented, arguing that the district court failed to conduct post-deliberation polling as required under Rule 5-611(D), and that any deviation from this requirement should be determined by the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals (paras 19-23).